| Involving Civil Society in the Work of Parliaments |
| 2.2 Consensus Conferences |
| Overview |
| Often decisions on scientific and technical issues are considered the province of experts. Yet many new scientific and technical developments raise serious social and ethical issues for the wider population. A consensus conference is a means of incorporating the perspectives of lay members of civil society within the assessment of new scientific and technological developments. A forum of lay people questions experts about a controversial scientific or technological subject, assesses the experts' responses, reaches a consensus about the subject and reports its conclusions at a press conference. The term consensus conference' originated in the 1970s in the USA where panels of experts were convened to facilitate professional assessment of new medical technologies. Consensus conferences that gave the key role to a panel of lay people were pioneered in Denmark in the 1980s. The first UK consensus conference took place in 1994. In common with citizens' juries, consensus conferences aim to both inform and consult with the citizenry. This form of citizen participation is particularly appropriate for involving citizens in decision making on complex and highly technical issues which require quite a high level of knowledge. |
| Description of procedure |
| Stage one: setting up the process |
|
| Stage two: running the conference |
|
| Case Studies |
| Denmark |
| The Danish Ministry of Research has funded several consensus conferences which have been run regularly since the 1980s by the Danish Board Of Technology (DBT) on topics which involve a partly or wholly unresolved technological or scientific issue of current social and political interest.14 |
| Topics:
1987 Genetic technology in industry and agriculture 1989 Food irradiation 1989 Human genome mapping 1990 Air pollution 1991 Educational technology 1992 Transgenic animals 1993 The future of private transport Infertility 1994 Electronic identity cards Information technology in transport Integrated production in agriculture |
| 1995 Chemicals in foodstuffs and the environment Gene therapy |
| The DBT has a relationship with the Danish parliament through its nine-member Research Committee and it tries to maximise the impact of its consensus conferences by holding them in the parliament building and scheduling them at times when particular topics are already the subject of public debate. The lay panel's findings are frequently mentioned in the Danish media and the Danish Board of Technology publishes the experts' papers, the lay panel's report, and a description of the conference. The Danish parliament has debated issues raised by the consensus conferences on several occasions. The lay panel's recommendations have no statutory authority but have sometimes had direct impact on the legislative process in the Danish parliament. For example, the lay panel's recommendations on genetic engineering in industry and agriculture led to the exclusion of transgenic animals from the first governmental biotechnology research and development programme; and following the conference on the human genome project the use of genetic testing for recruitment and insurance claims was outlawed by the Danish parliament. |
| Whilst consensus conferences in Denmark have had a marked impact on decision making at parliamentary level, their importance is perceived to be much wider. Consensus conferences attract impressive media coverage - the first and last days of the conferences are usually covered on television and radio and newspapers not only report on the conferences but run background and feature articles on the topic under discussion. Thus the conferences act as a stimulant to public debate. They also keep important issues on the political agenda. Consensus conferences in Denmark are now an established component of technological and scientific evaluation programmes. The DBT's assessment programme for the proposed development of electronic identity cards including conventional consultations with appropriate experts and a consensus conference to test the public acceptability of expert advice. Surveys conducted by the European Commission reveal high levels of public confidence in Denmark in public institutions responsible for scientific and technological development 15 |
| The Netherlands |
| The example of the Danish consensus conferences has been followed in the Netherlands following initiatives to involve the public in discussions of the social and ethical implications of scientific and technological developments. The organisation of the first conference was co-ordinated by the Rathenau Institute (formerly the Netherlands organisation for Technology Assessment, NOTA); the second by the Platform for Science and Ethics, a subdivision of the Rathenau Institute. |
| Topics:
1993 Genetic modification of animals 1995 Human genetics research |
| The Dutch organisers saw the role of the media as particularly important since one of the main functions of the consensus conference is to initiate broad public debate. Strategies for reaching the public were set out in 'communication plans' in which the aim of the consensus conference was defined as seeking to draw attention to and giving information about a particular subject and to stimulate the forming of opinion. The objectives of the conference were described as informing the public; stimulating public discussion; and influencing political decision making. |
| The Dutch experience is interesting because it draws attention to the importance of media coverage and to the difficulties of ensuring that the media show an interest in the proceedings. Without media coverage, the extent of public involvement is quite limited. One Dutch science writer commented that a consensus conference is a very expensive way to inform 15 people about an issue. For the first conference, which was on the use of transgenic animals, the organisers found it difficult to stimulate media interest as the Dutch parliament had already reached a decision on the issue of transgenic animals and passed a bill when the conference took place. There was more media interest in the second conference, on human genetics, since it coincided with debates on this subject in the Dutch parliament. However, the political status of the lay panel's report was a negative factor for the press. The lay panel's report had no binding force on any of the political parties. After the second conference the organisers began discussions with the Dutch media on how their respective objectives could be met - informing the public on the one hand and ensuring newsworthiness on the other. The Dutch experience suggests that the choice of topic, timing of the conference, potential political impact and breadth of media coverage are interrelated and contribute to the success or failure of the conference 16 |
| United Kingdom |
| There has only been one consensus conference in the UK to date. The UK experience was somewhat different to the Danish experience and some important insights can be gained by comparing the two. |
| Topic: |
| 1994 Plant biotechnology in food and agriculture. |
| The UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology (UKNCC) took place in London on 24 November 1994. It was funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) who are clearly an interested party responsible for funding biotechnological research. The organisation of the conference was therefore delegated to the Science Museum, London as a national institution committed to promoting the public understanding of science and technology. Plant biotechnology was chosen because new techniques of genetic modification in agriculture and the food industry were thought to be of both scientific and public interest without being 'too emotive'. The organisation of the conference was modelled on the Danish experience. Around 300 people attended the proceedings daily and the conference received some media coverage, although not as much as the organisers would have liked. |
| The UKNCC had no political locus. The lay panel had not been invested by the state with decision making powers or charged with producing a recommendation for the government. The panel's report did not feed into any Select Committee hearing or other form of public consultation. Lord Howie, Chair of the Lords Select Committee on Biotechnology, in his address to the conference stated that Parliament would not be influenced by the report in any significant way, thus excluding the conference from the legislative and regulatory process. One of the lay panel members, reflecting on the conference writes Most of the panel members were dismayed at the response by a member of the House of Lords who was dismissive of our report in terms of its contribution to the wider debate...the panel was of the opinion that he tried to denigrate its efforts by suggesting that it could not present an informed report',17 |
| The UKNCC seems to have been successful on its own terms, contributing to public debate and demonstrating that the technical difficulty of much contemporary science and technology is not an insuperable barrier to meaningful public participation. However, from the perspective of civic participation in decision making, the fact that the UKNCC was not integrated with Parliamentary business was a considerable weakness in the UK initiative as compared to the Danish experience. The lay panel's report was seen as essentially favourable towards the biotechnology industry. However, the report recommends, amongst other things, impartial and responsible informing of consumers and a need to curtail aggressive advertising of genetically modified products. It states that there is a moral obligation on the part of producers to label genetically modified food so that consumers, particularly those who have strong ethical or religious convictions, can choose what they consume. The report also calls for greater monitoring of genetically modified products by the government (UKNCC, (1994), Lay Panel Preliminary Report, London: UKNCC). These recommendations clearly had no impact on policy. When the conference was held in 1994, genetically modified products were not on the shelves. The level of public concern over the safety of these products is now much higher but it is European legislation that will finally make labelling obligatory. |
| Summary of Issues |
| Representativeness: In Denmark, there is no attempt to ensure representativeness in the composition of the lay panel since 16 people cannot constitute a statistically representative sample. Rather the aim is to choose people with diverse perspectives. In the UK, 341 people replied to the initial advertisement, of which 198 were male. The second stage of the selection process aimed at producing a cross-section, rather than a representative sample, of the British public. Initially, the respondents questionnaires were sorted into six categories by gender and age-ranges. The applicants were then further screened according to education, life-cycle, area of residence and reasons for wanting to participate. Clearly, the composition of the lay panel is an important issue, particularly in respect of the wider public perception of its legitimacy. Organisers may want to ensure that the panel includes members of particular minority groups within the population. |
| Cost: The cost of consensus conferences in Denmark was estimated at 49,000 ECU's in 1996. Klüver argues that the comparable cost of informing the public through the media or of running a social research project which has significantly less impact on public debate makes consensus conferences highly cost effective. The total budget for the one-off UKNCC was 104,000 ECU's. |
Legitimacy: The following
general points can be made about ensuring the political legitimacy of consensus
conferences:
|
| Political Impact: Although the consensus conferences held in Denmark have no statutory powers, they are organised by the parliamentary technology assessment institution; take place in the parliament building and the recommendations of the lay panel seem to be taken seriously in political decision making. The lack of any formal link between the UKNCC and the UK parliament must be seen as a definite disadvantage in the UK example although it did generate some interest from individual MPs and members of the House of Lords. |
Topic choice: The choice
of topic is an important issue. In Denmark, the choice is characterised
by the following criteria:
|
| In a critical appraisal of the UKNCC, Derrick Purdue questions why plant biotechnology was chosen rather than animal biotechnology when there was much more concern amongst the public about the latter at the time of the conference. It seems that whilst the Science Museum would have been happy to hold a conference on animal biotechnology, the BBSRC did not want this more emotive issue to be chosen as a topic. This underlines the points mentioned above that consensus conferences should be publicly funded rather than funded by powerful interests. The literature on the Danish experience suggests that topics which are particularly emotive are chosen precisely because they occasion so much public concern. |
| Selection of experts: A difficult problem is posed by the question of who is counted as an expert. Derrick Purdue argues that environmentalists were underrepresented on the expert side of the UK conference and points to the absence of ecologists who could have given a broader view of the possible risks of plant biotechnology. In his evaluation of UKNCC, Simon Joss suggests that the selection of the experts caused particular problems for the organisers. Only 15-20 of a list of 120 potential experts agreed to be involved. This severely limited the panel's choice of who they could call. Joss also argues that the lay panel need to be provided with more appropriate information in order to have a meaningful say in the selection of experts. In Denmark, the steering committee propose a list of experts to the panel based on the lay panel's request for different kinds of expertise at the first preparatory weekend. This, however, gives an agenda-setting role to the steering committee which it is ideally not supposed to have. It is also worth noting that the term 'expert' is given a wide definition by the Danish organisers. As well as scientific experts, 'opinion-forming' experts can be called. The latter may represent particular interest organisations, the arts etc. An expert is defined as someone who has relevant knowledge on the subject exceeding general knowledge. In practice, this may make the distinction between expert and lay quite difficult to sustain. |
| Consensus |
| In the UK, the lay panel were asked to leave out anything on which they could not come to a consensus which seems detrimental because the harder issues are hidden. In Denmark and the Netherlands, differences of opinion can be outlined in the text of the lay panel's report. |
| Role of the media: The success of consensus conferences in promoting wider civic participation depends on good media coverage. This needs to be thought about quite care-fully because the lay panel must not be unduly influenced by the media coverage. The degree of political impact and the choice of topic are clearly crucial factors in provoking media interest. |
| Monitoring and evaluation: As with other innovative forms of citizen participation, monitoring and evaluation are of crucial importance. External evaluation of the process must be built into the organisation of the consensus conference. |